Light isn't a particle
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: According to 1905 Relativity, a single material point must be always at rest
Next: Aether Displacement
From: BURT on 23 May 2010 12:12 On May 23, 9:09 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 23, 12:07 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On May 23, 9:02 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On May 23, 12:00 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > Please stop repeating. > > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > > I am simply quoting your statements where you define a photon as > > > consisting of a physical wave and a physical particle. > > > > Are you refuting your own statements? > > > > "light wave ... oscillating into ... mass" is the photon 'particle'. > > > > "Light ... is ... small particle" is the photon 'particle'. > > > > "Light collapsing into ... particle" is the photon 'particle'. > > > > "Oscillating into ... particle" is the photon 'particle'. > > > > If detectors are placed at the exits to the slits in a double slit > > > experiment the 'particle' is always detected exiting a single slit. > > > The ability of light to collapse into a particle travels a single > > > path. The light wave enters and exits both slits in a double slit > > > experiment. The ability of the light to collapse into a particle > > > enters and exits a single slit. The light wave exits both slits and > > > creates interference which alters the direction the 'particle' > > > travels. Detecting the 'particle' causes decoherence of the associated > > > wave and there is no interference. > > > You are a parot. Please stop repeating. > > > Mitch Raemsch > > You still have not answered the question. > > Are you refuting your own statements? > > "light wave ... oscillating into ... mass" is the photon 'particle'. > > "Light ... is ... small particle" is the photon 'particle'. > > "Light collapsing into ... particle" is the photon 'particle'. > > "Oscillating into ... particle" is the photon 'particle'. > > If detectors are placed at the exits to the slits in a double slit > experiment the 'particle' is always detected exiting a single slit. > The ability of light to collapse into a particle travels a single > path. The light wave enters and exits both slits in a double slit > experiment. The ability of the light to collapse into a particle > enters and exits a single slit. The light wave exits both slits and > creates interference which alters the direction the 'particle' > travels. Detecting the 'particle' causes decoherence of the associated > wave and there is no interference.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - The question to be answered is what wave is the particle in if it exists? the electric or the magnetic wave of light? Please stop repeating. Mitch Raemsch
From: mpc755 on 23 May 2010 12:15 On May 23, 12:12 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On May 23, 9:09 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 23, 12:07 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > On May 23, 9:02 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 23, 12:00 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > Please stop repeating. > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > > > I am simply quoting your statements where you define a photon as > > > > consisting of a physical wave and a physical particle. > > > > > Are you refuting your own statements? > > > > > "light wave ... oscillating into ... mass" is the photon 'particle'.. > > > > > "Light ... is ... small particle" is the photon 'particle'. > > > > > "Light collapsing into ... particle" is the photon 'particle'. > > > > > "Oscillating into ... particle" is the photon 'particle'. > > > > > If detectors are placed at the exits to the slits in a double slit > > > > experiment the 'particle' is always detected exiting a single slit. > > > > The ability of light to collapse into a particle travels a single > > > > path. The light wave enters and exits both slits in a double slit > > > > experiment. The ability of the light to collapse into a particle > > > > enters and exits a single slit. The light wave exits both slits and > > > > creates interference which alters the direction the 'particle' > > > > travels. Detecting the 'particle' causes decoherence of the associated > > > > wave and there is no interference. > > > > You are a parot. Please stop repeating. > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > You still have not answered the question. > > > Are you refuting your own statements? > > > "light wave ... oscillating into ... mass" is the photon 'particle'. > > > "Light ... is ... small particle" is the photon 'particle'. > > > "Light collapsing into ... particle" is the photon 'particle'. > > > "Oscillating into ... particle" is the photon 'particle'. > > > If detectors are placed at the exits to the slits in a double slit > > experiment the 'particle' is always detected exiting a single slit. > > The ability of light to collapse into a particle travels a single > > path. The light wave enters and exits both slits in a double slit > > experiment. The ability of the light to collapse into a particle > > enters and exits a single slit. The light wave exits both slits and > > creates interference which alters the direction the 'particle' > > travels. Detecting the 'particle' causes decoherence of the associated > > wave and there is no interference.- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > The question to be answered is what wave is the particle in if it > exists? the electric or the magnetic wave of light? > > Please stop repeating. > > Mitch Raemsch What part of "The magnetic and electric FIELDS of AN electromagnetic wave...of THE wave" are you incapable of understanding? http://science.hq.nasa.gov/kids/imagers/ems/waves2.html "Electromagnetic waves are formed when an electric field (shown as blue arrows) couples with a magnetic field (shown as red arrows). The magnetic and electric fields of an electromagnetic wave are perpendicular to each other and to the direction of the wave." ....of AN electromagnetic wave...and to the direction of THE wave. The 'particle' occupies a very small region of AN electromagnetic wave. The 'particle' occupies a very small region of THE wave. In a double slit experiment with photons, why is the interference pattern built up over time based upon individual registrations? In a double slit experiment with photons, if there is no 'particle' associated with the photon wave, then why isn't the interference pattern created similar to an ocean wave hitting the shore? http://www.fas.harvard.edu/ ~scidemos/QuantumRelativity/SinglePhotonInterference/ SinglePhotonInterfe rence.html "Rather than the usual screen, the arrival of individual photons is registered and stored electronically. This alone is evidence for the graininess or particle nature of light." The photon 'particle' occupies a very small region of THE wave. You still have not answered the question. Are you refuting your own statements? "light wave ... oscillating into ... mass" is the photon 'particle'. "Light ... is ... small particle" is the photon 'particle'. "Light collapsing into ... particle" is the photon 'particle'. "Oscillating into ... particle" is the photon 'particle'. If detectors are placed at the exits to the slits in a double slit experiment the 'particle' is always detected exiting a single slit. The ability of light to collapse into a particle travels a single path. The light wave enters and exits both slits in a double slit experiment. The ability of the light to collapse into a particle enters and exits a single slit. The light wave exits both slits and creates interference which alters the direction the 'particle' travels. Detecting the 'particle' causes decoherence of the associated wave and there is no interference.
From: spudnik on 23 May 2010 15:12 what is wrong with the idea, that the wave of light travels through both slits, whence it recombines through constructive interference, and collapses as a single quantum into the device or atom of silver oxide in the film? what is any need, at all, for Newton's corpuscle, since Young obliterated it? I know, "hit the God-am macro about [Young's] double-hole exp.!" thusNso: that'd be a different, "hybrid" technology; econometrics would be applied by the company. now, an argument could be made, that most machines wil work, better, in the shade, so, why not shade with PVs? on the other hand, you'd need a lightbulb, to grow hemp or "biodeisel" under neath them. > The point is that many of these oil fields are in desert areas with > lots and lots of free sunshine, so it makes sense to use solar power > to pump up the oil and pump it into pipelines , rather than use oil > and diesel generators. thusNso: why reply to BURNT, I ask you. why do I reply to you & your so-called theory, you could legitimately answer! anyway, if you take your statement (beolwsville) seriously, then it would be an infinitessimal part of the wave, and you'd be back at the useless "point particles" of "classical physics" or just Newtonianism. it is certainly unfortunate that Einstein may have been thinking of this, when he coined the term, photon ... but, it's better to have your Theory of Everything be built upon a foundation of little rocks o'light, than to have a big pile of rocks on your toe. > The 'particle' occupies a very small region of THE wave. thusNso: aside from "your English sucks, badly," I really don't know what you mean, because it changes from day to day. why would a photon have a minimum mass of 10^-90 kilograms, and what in Hell is the Dimensions Game?... well, if you cannot answer either question, Game Over! thsNso: quaternions have three signs (unary operators), i, j & k; now, if you wanted to get rid of the minus sign, as well, that would be an additional problem. since you do not propose to get rid of addition (binary operator) or multiplication (binary operator), but use the symbols for those operators in your hare-brained additions ... it just makes me feel bad, unless you can prove, that you don't need subtractions or negatives. on the wayside, i may not fully grok the idea of unary operators, but "exp()" and "ln()" are canonically such. > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_Hall_effect > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional_quantum_Hall_effect thusNso there may not have been any exposition, but I didn't think of that, that his hare-brained attempt unconsciously obliterated the pythagorean theorem, iff it actualy did any thing, at all, that any one could comprehend, including doctor Martin. thusNso: is he trying to prove that all solutions to the Fermat curves, pass only through irrational points on the grid?... welcome to the club! well, he ceraintly didn't prove that, as far as I can see (but I'm wearing the oldstyle 3d glasses, so, y'never know .-) thusNso: yeah; first, do no harm, or assign yourself to an automatic "opt-in to your killfile, thank *me*." anyway, that is not Bucky's system, but Cliff's. at least, he is not among the fanatics, who beleive what Bucky saith, that he alleviated the need for math with Nature's Co-ordinating System -- as important as some of that is. "to remove me from your killfile, send your Social Security Number to tim(a)polysignosis.org; thank *you*." thsNso: "pressure equals a third of energy density" -- really?... well, a tetrahedron is a third of the volume of the parallelopiped that it's inscribed in; so, there. "spacetime" is a totally useless word for concepts, since it is merely phase-space of ordinary space; just use quaternions, real part as time. (funny thing: I just read that Hoagland's "hyperdimensional physics" was nothing but quaternions "a la Maxwell," Yahoo!TM .-) thusNso: I don't see any neccesary resaon for *any* irrational number to have a maximum run of any digit in what ever integral base; so, rake one coal over yourself for propitiating such a silly idea! on the wayside, 0.999.... does not = 1; it equals 1.000...., the "real"number, one; take a hop, a skip & a jump over Tony Robinson's bed of coals. thusNso: the second part of the question is clearly trivial, and the first part seems to be its inverse, or what ever. have Farey sequences ever been used for continued fractions, or does that make any sense, at all? > Example: The fraction 4 / 97 occur in the place 197 of > the Farey's sequence of order 113. How can I know it > without calculate all the smaller terms? --Pi, the surfer's canonical value -- good to at least one place! http://wlym.com
From: BURT on 23 May 2010 15:30 On May 23, 12:12 pm, spudnik <Space...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > what is wrong with the idea, > that the wave of light travels through both slits, > whence it recombines through constructive interference, and > collapses as a single quantum > into the device or atom of silver oxide in the film? > > what is any need, at all, for Newton's corpuscle, > since Young obliterated it? > > I know, "hit the God-am macro about [Young's] double-hole exp.!" > > thusNso: > that'd be a different, "hybrid" technology; > econometrics would be applied by the company. now, > an argument could be made, that most machines wil > work, better, in the shade, so, why not shade with PVs? > > on the other hand, you'd need a lightbulb, > to grow hemp or "biodeisel" under neath them. > > > The point is that many of these oil fields are in desert areas with > > lots and lots of free sunshine, so it makes sense to use solar power > > to pump up the oil and pump it into pipelines , rather than use oil > > and diesel generators. > > thusNso: > why reply to BURNT, I ask you. why do I reply > to you & your so-called theory, you could legitimately answer! > > anyway, if you take your statement (beolwsville) seriously, then > it would be an infinitessimal part of the wave, and > you'd be back at the useless "point particles" of "classical physics" > or > just Newtonianism. it is certainly unfortunate that > Einstein may have been thinking of this, when he coined the term, > photon ... but, it's better to have your Theory of Everything be built > upon a foundation of little rocks o'light, than > to have a big pile of rocks on your toe. > > > The 'particle' occupies a very small region of THE wave. > > thusNso: > aside from "your English sucks, badly," I really don't know > what you mean, because it changes from day to day. > why would a photon have a minimum mass of 10^-90 kilograms, and > what in Hell is the Dimensions Game?... well, if > you cannot answer either question, Game Over! > > thsNso: > quaternions have three signs (unary operators), i, j & k; now, > if you wanted to get rid of the minus sign, as well, > that would be an additional problem. > since you do not propose to get rid of addition (binary operator) > or > multiplication (binary operator), but use the symbols > for those operators in your hare-brained additions ... > it just makes me feel bad, unless you can prove, > that you don't need subtractions or negatives. > on the wayside, i may not fully grok the idea > of unary operators, but "exp()" and "ln()" are canonically such. > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_Hall_effect > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional_quantum_Hall_effect > > thusNso > there may not have been any exposition, but > I didn't think of that, that > his hare-brained attempt unconsciously obliterated the pythagorean > theorem, > iff it actualy did any thing, at all, > that any one could comprehend, including doctor Martin. > > thusNso: > is he trying to prove that all solutions > to the Fermat curves, pass only through irrational points > on the grid?... welcome to the club! > well, he ceraintly didn't prove that, as far as I can see (but > I'm wearing the oldstyle 3d glasses, so, y'never know .-) > > thusNso: > yeah; first, do no harm, or assign yourself > to an automatic "opt-in to your killfile, thank *me*." > anyway, that is not Bucky's system, but Cliff's. at least, > he is not among the fanatics, who beleive what Bucky saith, > that he alleviated the need for math with Nature's Co-ordinating > System > -- as important as some of that is. > "to remove me from your killfile, > send your Social Security Number to t...(a)polysignosis.org; thank > *you*." > > thsNso: > "pressure equals a third of energy density" -- really?... well, > a tetrahedron is a third of the volume of the parallelopiped > that it's inscribed in; so, there. > "spacetime" is a totally useless word for concepts, since > it is merely phase-space of ordinary space; > just use quaternions, real part as time. (funny thing: > I just read that Hoagland's "hyperdimensional physics" was > nothing but quaternions "a la Maxwell," Yahoo!TM .-) > > thusNso: > I don't see any neccesary resaon for *any* irrational number > to have a maximum run of any digit in what ever integral base; so, > rake one coal over yourself for propitiating such a silly idea! > on the wayside, > 0.999.... does not = 1; > it equals 1.000...., the "real"number, one; > take a hop, a skip & a jump over Tony Robinson's bed of coals. > > thusNso: > the second part of the question is clearly trivial, and > the first part seems to be its inverse, or what ever. > have Farey sequences ever been used for continued fractions, or > does that make any sense, at all? > > > Example: The fraction 4 / 97 occur in the place 197 of > > the Farey's sequence of order 113. How can I know it > > without calculate all the smaller terms? > > --Pi, the surfer's canonical value -- good to at least one place!http://wlym.com What size does a light wave begin as at emision? If the wave is low energy and large does it appear all at once accross space or does it begin small and grow? If it is local it must begin small and grow. Mitch Raemsch
From: spudnik on 23 May 2010 15:39
same as with a pebble in the water, but depending on the source; i.e. a quantum of light from Sun, may be generated by the entire surface; after that, "c to the second power, not 'skware,'" is just the rate of expansion of the area of the wavefront; the only particles invovled are the atoms that transmit from one to the other, "like any thing else," only electromagnetically. now, stick your aether-macro in here, and dyscuss! > What size does a light wave begin as at emmission? |